Helping v. Hindering Sovereignty: The Differential Politicization of the European Court of Human Rights in the Austrian and Swiss Press

In recent years, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has faced
increasing criticism by various stakeholders. Its authority to pass binding judgments on human rights violations committed by the signatory states of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) has been put in question not only by Russia and Turkey, which are frequently found to have violated the ECHR, but also by states such as Switzerland and the United Kingdom. However, the level of skepticism vis-à-vis the Court and the readiness to act upon the expressed criticism seem to vary across the different signatory states. Based on the conception of politicization proposed by Zürn, Binder, and Ecker-Ehrhardt, we compare the public evaluation of the ECtHR in Austria and Switzerland. Our analysis of evaluative statements on the ECtHR in the Austrian and Swiss quality press from
1999 to 2016 shows that the ECtHR is more strongly politicized in Switzerland than in Austria. Moreover, the justifications given for delegitimizing statements in Switzerland hint at different perspectives on the relation between international institutions and popular sovereignty. In the Austrian case, the ECtHR is seen to be
helping to achieve sovereignty; in the Swiss debate, it is mainly viewed as hindering—or intruding on—popular sovereignty. In more general terms, this observation suggests a need to theorize and empirically map the interplay between local conceptions of legitimate political authority and the legitimation of international institutions.